Stevan Harnad's misconception 2

From: Velterop, Jan, Springer UK <Jan.Velterop_at_SPRINGER.COM>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:02:54 +0100

Misconception: OA publishers opposing OA.

Stevan Harnad calls it "disappointing, if not deplorable" if OA
publishers take a stance "against Open Access itself." Couldn't agree
more, if that were indeed the case. But it isn't. It's an absurd notion
that they are. 'Gold' OA publishers are definitely for Open Access.
Strongly so.

And they are not against 'green'. After all, they endorse 'green'. They
are just not necessarily so fanatically for it to support a
self-archiving *mandate* (which is not the same as an OA mandate) for
non OA-published materials, since they see its flaws. Stevan seems to
adhere to the Bush-Rumsfeld school of thought: "if you're not entirely,
unquestioningly, and unequivocally for us, you're against us."

Jan Velterop

> -----Original Message-----
> From: SPARC Open Access Forum [mailto:SPARC-OAForum_at_arl.org]
> On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 28 February 2007 04:09
> To: SPARC Open Access Forum
> Subject: [SOAF] Reply to Jan Velterop, and a Challenge to
> "OA" Publishers Who Oppose Mandating OA via Self-Archiving
>
> ** Cross-Posted **
>
[cut]
>
> But what is especially disappointing, if not deplorable, is
> when so-called "Open Access" publishers take exactly the same
> stance against Open Access (OA) itself (sic) that
> conventional publishers do.
> Conventional publisher opposition to OA will be viewed,
> historically, as having been a regrettable, counterproductive
> (and eventually
> countermanded) but comprehensible strategy, from a purely
> business standpoint. OA publisher opposition to OA, however,
> will be seen as having been self-deluded if not hypocritical.
>
> Let me be very specific: There are two ways to provide OA:
> Either individual authors make their own (conventionally)
> published journal article's final draft ("postprint") freely
> accessible on the Web, or their journals make their published
> drafts freely accessible on the Web.
> The first is called "Green OA" (OA self-archiving) and the
> second is called "Gold OA" (OA publishing).
>
> In other words, one of the forms of OA (OA publishing, Gold
> OA) is a new form of publishing, whereas the other (Green OA)
> is not: it is just conventional subscription-based publishing
> plus author self-help, a supplement. Both forms of OA are
> equivalent; both maximize research usage and impact. But one
> depends on the author and the other depends on the publisher.
>
[cut]
Received on Wed Feb 28 2007 - 19:15:03 GMT